You will not see the impact until after this season. A majority of the kids have already transferred prior to the July 1st deadline. So the rule is pretty basic, if a player transfers regardless of home residence, the athlete has to sit out 50% of the games of the following season. It will make sense for a freshman going into JV; doesn't make sense for an impact Jr/Sr to transfer as they will lose 50% of potential game experience and film. But my guess is that it wont mean anything to some parents.
I strongly believe this new rule will ultimately be rejected if tested in court - just look at the history on AIA's own site re prior rule - this new rule could definitely be seen as violating open enrollment and/or require a fact specific investigation any time there is a move (as most families will likely appeal for hardship, if in fact they are changing domiciles). That is contrary to what previously was determined to be legitimate.
How does it violate open enrollment? You can open enroll practically anywhere. Students do not have a right to play sports. That is a privilege. It doesn't interfere with your ability to get an education, unless you're like Mr. "My 13 year old is a D1 athlete" who have no eyes on the future besides sports. Use your cabesa.
"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move the earth."
Right, once again my kid could stop playing sports tomorrow and I would be just as happy. Just as long as he is a productive and respective man in this world. And yes I stand by my word, at 13 with continued development and maintaining his current grades (never below a B) he will be a D1 athlete (and you will be the first to hear from me). I said the same thing about DuckMom15s son 7 years ago. So while your knocking someone for bettering themselves through sports or with the help of sports to gain a free education, I think thats your issue. Sports (all not just football) if used properly offers valuable life lessons in addition to education. Have you ever had a student/player come to you with their parents and tell "if should anything ever happen to guys, I want to live with Mr. Adrastos". So what is your WHY as an educator?
You can find the legislative minutes dealing with the transfer rule here: http://aiaonline.org/files/15302/legislative-council-meeting-minutes-march-4-2016.pdf
Note the proposed amendments at the bottom and the results of the vote as well. I suspect a new version of the constitution and bylaws for 2016-17 will be up on the website at some point which will incorporate all the changes made during the past year.
As far as I can tell, the changes only apply to transfers that do not change domicile. So there does not appear to be anything stopping the current practice of moving, or renting a new place in order to play immediately for a different school. Really all this new rule does it make it easier to transfer when you don't move your domicile. So good job AIA if the intent was to limit transfers.
change of domicile does not matter, only date. This is so ADs don't have to check every transfer's "change of domicile", which was a farce anyways. It's pretty simple: Prior to 7/1 - you're eligible entire season After 7/1 - you're eligible half the season
Question. There seemed to be a number of kids that transferred during spring semester. Maybe some changed domicile and some didn't. If you transferred spring semester and did not change domicile are you immediately eligible? I don't see that in the changes going into effect July 1. It seems like you would be subject to the AIA bylaws as they currently exist. (Until the July 1 changes go into effect.) Am I missing something? It's hard to piece together the bylaws as they are because I can't find them in one place.
It seems like there are 4 relevant scenarios.
Transfer prior to July 1, no change of domicile.
Transfer prior to July 1, with change of domicile.
Transfer after July 1, no change of domicile.
Transfer after July 1, with change of domicile.
As I read the bylaws, both current and those effective July 1 , the following results occur:
Player is ineligible per current bylaws unless granted an exemption.
Player is eligible immediately.
Player misses 50% of games.
Player is eligible immediately.
Is this right? If not, which conclusions are wrong and why?
Obviously you haven't been to PHHS. We lose kids every year to surrounding schools like Shadow, Valley, and Willow. Hoping a transfer rule would prevent that from happening but I would imagine this new rule makes it easier for them.